You are on page 1of 4

CANON 10

Canon 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper,
the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Cases:
1. COMELEC v. Noynay, 292 SCRA 254 (1992)
Facts:

Rule 138, Sec. 20 (d) in relation to Garcia v. Francisco 220 SCRA 512 (1993)
Gomez v. Presiding Judge 249 SCRA 432

CANON 11
CANON 11. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03. - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11. 04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
1. In re Sotto 82 Phil 595 (1949)
Facts:
Atty. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement in connection with the decision of the Court in

In re Angel Parazo the statement was published in the Manila Times and other daily
newspapers of the locality. The court required Atty. Sotto to show cause why he should not
be charged with contempt of court.
Atty. Sotto does not deny having published the statement but he contends that under
section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, which confers upon this Supreme Court the power
to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, "this Court has no power
to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and that the Supreme Court can only
impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be promulgated by Congress
with the approval of the Chief Executive." And he also alleges in his answer that "in the
exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the respondent made his
statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no intention of offending any of
the majority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal, who, in his opinion, erroneously
decided the Parazo case; but he has not attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or
integrity of any one.' The other arguments set forth by the respondent in his defenses
observe no consideration.
Issue:
WON Atty. Sotto can be punished for contempt of court?
Ruling:
Yes.
Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of
the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated; because if
well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if
committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously erroneous, it should, in no way, influence
the court in reversing or modifying its decision.
Atty. Sotto does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which
was then and still is pending reconsideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Parazo. He
not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in the
next Congress, of which he is one of the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and
reducing the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members of
Justices from eleven to seven, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the
Parazo case, who according to Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who now has to suffer 30
days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the source of a news published in his paper, I
regret to say that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it
is once more putting in evidence the incompetency of narrow mindedness o the majority of
its members, In the wake of so many mindedness of the majority deliberately committed
during these last years, I believe that the only remedy to put an end to so much evil, is to
change the members of the Supreme Court. To his effect, I announce that one of the first
measures, which as its objects the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. As it is
now constituted, a constant peril to liberty and democracy. It need be said loudly, very
loudly, so that even the deaf may hear: the Supreme Court very of today is a far cry from
the impregnable bulwark of Justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano, Victorino
Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor and glory of the
Philippine Judiciary.
His statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision
of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice.

As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in
duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity
according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice. An attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to
be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts, he may be removed from
office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct.
Decision: Atty. Sotto guilty of contempt. Fine of 1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency. He is also required to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
2. Sangalang v. IAC
Facts:

De Gracia v. Warden of Makati, G.R. No. L-42032, January 9, 1976


Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645 (1993)
In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562
Sangalang v. IAC, 177 SCRA 87
Go v. Abrogar, 485 SCRA 457
1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6.
Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 (1993)
Ang v Castro, 136 SCRA 453 (May 15, 1985)
CANON 12. A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on
the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the
copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03. - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12. 04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgement or
misuse Court processes.
Rule 12. 05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the
trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Rule 12. 07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Rule 12. 08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument,


and the
like, or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another
counsel.
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec 6
Rule 138, Sec 20(g)
Villasis v. Court of Appeals, 60 SCRA 120
Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91
RULES OF COURT, RULE 7, SEC. 5:
Achacoso v. Court of Appeals, 51 SCRA 424, 1973
Manila Pest Control v. WCC, 25 SCRA 700 (1968)
Art. 184, Revised Penal Code
US v. Ballena, 18 Phil. 382
Rule 132, Sec. 3
PD1829-Penalizing Obstruction of Justice
PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, 57 Phil 337 (1932)
CANON 13. A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN
FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Rule 13.03. - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of
the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.
1. Austria v. Masaquel, 20 SCRA 1247(1967)
Nestle Phil. v. Sanchez 154 SCRA 542 (1987)
In re de Vera 385 SCRA 285 (2003)
Cruz v. Salva, 105 Phil 1151 (1951)
RE: Request Radio TV Coverage, A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C. June 29, 2001
Magsalang v. People, G.R. No. 90083 October 4, 1990